Questions for LEGO Engineers

[decemberssecond1]

Hey! I am working on making my building skills more well-rounded, and I want to learn more about the engineering aspect of LEGO. I have some questions for technic MOC builders here.

Do you prefer to recreate the actual mechanics of your subject, or come up with your own mechanisms to fit the LEGO system?

How much do you like to prioritize aesthetics vs. mechanics? Is it a 50/50 split?

How much do you like to integrate system bricks into your builds?

How do you decide what subjects to build?

How do you approach design challenges?

If any of you have experience in real-life mechanical engineering, how is your LEGO approach different than your mechanical approach?

What makes you choose technic over system bricks?

What are your tips for a mostly system-based builder who wants to learn more about technic?

Thanks!

[aeh5040]

I am far from a typical builder, but fwiw:

Ideally I prefer to do things that have not been done before, so there is no actual mechanics to copy.

Mechanics always comes first. If I can shape it into something elegant, that's a bonus.

Whatever parts are needed (but in practice not much system).

Dunno really - ideas from random sources, imagination, building on others ideas...

Lots of trial and error. Start with the hardest bit.

Lego has its own constraints.

See above.

Start with official sets. There is lots to learn from the designers!

 

[everybrickasculpture]

I think it's easier to recreate the mechanics of the subject, when available.  You can't always do this but it's getting easier and easier with new parts.

To me, aesthetics come secondary to mechanics, but I don't really see the two as being in competition.  Aesthetics are informed and influenced by the mechanics, they are not necessarily in opposition.

I prefer to mix the two.  I don't consider them separate systems, just different styles.

I just build whatever appeals to my inner 10 year old.  This tends to be sci-fi stuff or race-inspired stuff.

For design challenges, I usually try to come up with solutions that would be done in the real world, and build a test model to see how viable it is.  This is usually an iterative process.

I am a mechanical engineer in the automotive industry, and I would say my lego process mirrors my real-world process to some degree, although my budget tends to be less, and there is less rigorous testing.  But lots of guessing, testing, and tweaking.

I choose both!

To go from standard bricks to technic, you will need to learn some mechanical principles, and how to make stable structures.  You can do this to some degree by building sets, but I think the best way to learn is to pick up some motors and just start playing around.  Making a basic car with steering and a differential would be a great place to start.

[2GodBDGlory]

3 hours ago, decemberssecond1 said:

Hey! I am working on making my building skills more well-rounded, and I want to learn more about the engineering aspect of LEGO. I have some questions for technic MOC builders here.

Do you prefer to recreate the actual mechanics of your subject, or come up with your own mechanisms to fit the LEGO system?

How much do you like to prioritize aesthetics vs. mechanics? Is it a 50/50 split?

How much do you like to integrate system bricks into your builds?

How do you decide what subjects to build?

How do you approach design challenges?

If any of you have experience in real-life mechanical engineering, how is your LEGO approach different than your mechanical approach?

What makes you choose technic over system bricks?

What are your tips for a mostly system-based builder who wants to learn more about technic?

Thanks!

• Where possible, I like to recreate the original mechanics, but if something else is required to fit in a given space, that's fine too. I do give myself bonus points if the achievement of mechanical functions is realistic, though!
• Historically, I've probably gone about 30/70 on aesthetics to functionality, but I think I'm starting to improve on aesthetics, so now it might be more of a 40/60
• I'll use System bricks for detail work on the body to get smoother shapes, and really anywhere else it feels useful, but it's not too helpful for most other things
• I choose topics for my builds based on which real-world machines I find interesting, and based on which have interesting mechanics I want to replicate. 
• I guess my strategy with design challenges is to always start with the most complicated parts of the build, then move on to functions that are very location-specific and can't be relocated, and then finish it out. As for challenges more specifically, I'm not really sure what to suggest, other than thinking outside the box. Having large list of possible techniques floating around in your head can be just what you need sometimes, so researching other people's solutions can be worthwhile, even if you don't use it for a long time. TechnicBricks.com was a favorite place of mine for all kinds of ideas, but it's now offline, requiring that you access it through The Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20211221022646/http://www.technicbricks.com/
• What makes me choose Technic over System? I love machinery and mechanisms! It's also cool to have two levels to a build, trying to balance functionality and aesthetics
• For a System builder wanting to learn more about Technic, I'd say build some sets, and practice a lot! Sariel's The Unofficial Lego Technic Builder's Guide, from No Starch Press, is also a great resource

[SNIPE]

So, when I make a technic MOC, I try to use axles without stops, or axles with stops as long as the stops are not blocked off,

I also use 3L pins with end stop rather than the usual 3L pin with friction/without friction, I also try to use as many of the connectors which have bush style end(s) as well as obvioustly use 1 full bush instead of 1 half bushes.

This is because gears can fit into the tiny groove on full bushes/bush style connectors.

I also avoid 0.5L parts unless they are doubled up to make them an integer unit.

I also avoid diagonal connections and diagonal beams/other such parts.

2L pins are a problem because they can't be pushed out however there is a way, the bushings from 2L hinge plates (though these are 90's parts and are expensive in bulk)

Just sanding down 2L pins so that they dont have the stop ring in the middle isn't a good idea because they can get mixed up with un-cut pins, and also they are way weaker than using the bushes from the 2L hinge plates.

I also like to start from the ground up, so if its say a car, you build the axles first, decide on the wheelbase and trackwidth, then put the chassis "floor" in (but keep that very simple for now, dont overload it with structural parts) because theres a lot of stuff to be added later.

Then you add the gearbox , paddle shifter, D-N-R selector, hook up the 2 axles if its 4WD, hook up the steering if its 4 wheel steering, and hook up the ride height adjustment (if it has adjustable ride height on both axles)

Of course, you might need to design the gearbox to have a passthru for a driveshaft, steering shaft, and optionally, a centre differential may go under or inside of the gearbox.

I'm terrible at making gearboxes so I just use an existing design and modify that.

I also use LegoScript which is a tool that can figure out how and where to reduce the parts count, though its a very basic tool currently so most stuff I just know from memory, to get the parts count down.

I don't care much for structural atability until much later because its easy to pack in connectors and beams once you've got all the functions in, but its much harder to do the opposite. (add lots of structural parts which get in the way of the functional stuff.

You can also use LDCAD to help though I'm trying  not to use it as much because it takes what would be built in minutes, hours and hours and you can't test structural stabiity or mechanical reliability in LDCAD. Heck LDCAD doesnt even care about parts collision (which is OK anyhow for a good reason) but that can be a problem when it comes to the real build not fitting together.

One thing to note that LEGO is not a cheap hobby also, so Im fine with buying brand new expensive parts, or rare recolors/rare parts/discontinued parts, though engineering is about cost saving in general I don't think of it with LEGO because LEGO is about freedom to make what you want, I would never engineer a real life tractor because it would bankrupt me several times over, but with LEGO you dont need to worry about that.

Well, those are my 2 cents, hope it was of some insight.

[steph77]

OK, try into some contribution to this interresting topic.

I alway begin by shaping the overall model in real life with real parts. No care of any functunal aspect at this moment.

This milestone allows me to evaluate the real free space into the overall model in wich i can place mechanics.

Then i define a strategy, wich results in the main choices. Motorized or not? Place for the batteries? mechanics or pneumatics? All functions motorized or some of them manual? etc..

Next come the second step.

This step is made using the first mocup that still stay build. The reference model is usefull to keep proportions, main form, etc..

In this step i usually place the main functionalities as direction, suspensions and essentially, when concerned, the gearbox distribution.

The following step, with the previous model still build, consist in a full rebuild of the model trying to enhance each and every aspect as look, proportion, technical efficiency. This step is the time when a strong optimisation of al aspect is done. I do it in this way because it is at this third step that i begin to have in mind all the specific constraints of the model.

Then : Repeat of the previous step as often as neccecary until i state the model is finished.

Nota: Potentially, a model never finish...

You can have a look et my katana supersport topic as a reference of my explaination. The process is clearly illustarted.

KATANA SUPERSPORT

Have a nice build!

Edited February 16 by steph77

[Lipko]

Usually own mechanisms to fit the system (unless a main feature is the faithfullness to the real mechanism).

Aestetics is slightly above function. Playibility, sturdiness, building experience (the interestingness of the internal non-visible stuff) somewhere between the two.

Not much, but more and more lately, because I don't have many system parts. And most of the time I find system details to fall off easily, thus making the model less playable and trickier to grab.

I like to build stuf that's pretty (and I don't care about uniquness), but also the exact topic should not exist yet in high quality. I don't want to repeat, and I don't want to make lower quality model of something that's already done. To put it another way: I only build a model if I think I can add something that's was not done (too much) yet. For example I'd probably never make yet another Baja truck, but my latest model is a Dakar buggy (I haven't seen many Technic Dakar buggies yet). My telehandler model had auto-leveling pallet fork, and my pneumatic backhoe had a proper interior without the usual spagetti of tubes in place. Also that's the reason I prefer custom car designs.

I look for existing real life solutions first. If I get stuck, I look for existing Lego solutions. I usually build a separate mockup version with a rudimentary frame to design a specific feature.

I have experience, and my general approach is not much different: less thinking, more research and testing. Though one thing is different: in real life, my first iteration usually works (and since I don't design stuff for the market, I don't have to optimize). But Lego design takes many iterations and/or versions because of the material's restrictions and limited parts inventory. For me, Lego design is much more about 3D puzzles (which I suck at) than engineering. Engineering (for someone with a degree) in Lego is usually very basic stuff, that you can simply look up if you don't know about yet. I built a pretty good airplane not because I knew anything or care about planes, but because I did a tiny bit of research.

I have a more complete collection of Techinc parts (that's also the main reason I find it easier to work with than regular Lego).

Buy some sets and build them. Also the B model if available. And build a big, complete but simple MOC without refining too much. Don't care about perfectness yet.
Participate in contests, especially if the theme is outside your comfort zone. And go for the win.
Also, I think it was important for me that I was always into modelling of some sort before Lego, so I guess trying out some die cast stuff or computer 3D won't hurt.

Edited February 16 by Lipko

[langko]

- Actual mechanics where possible. Sometimes it's too difficult to replicate the exact mechanic, so I come up with a LEGO solution that gets the same end result.

- 50/50 split. If it looks good but is boring on the inside, or mechanically interesting but looks bad, I don't see the point. It is easy to do one or the other, much more difficult to do both on the same model. When that is achieved that is when I get the most building satisfaction.

- As minimally as possible to get the desired result. They tend to be great for smaller details but not larger areas.

- I stick to designing cars, because that is what I like most. But every MOC I do has to have 1 interesting function that the others haven't had yet. I also try picking cars that haven't yet been designed to my liking. Otherwise I might as well just build that persons model.

- I generally start by roughly building the outside of the model first. I find it easier to then plan how I build the inside and not build the mechanics too big. I always look for real life examples and other peoples models to get inspiration. If I get really stuck I put it to the side and work on a different part of the model. 

- I work mainly with sheet metal design and fabrication. Solidworks for design, laser cutting and brake press machines for manufacturing. Basic design rules apply for both: strong structures whilst trying to minimise weight and unnecessary parts, model has to look good and function well. Apart from that it is very different. LEGO you stick to existing parts and its a puzzle how to put them together. My day job you are creating the shape of the parts from scratch and because of that it requires a lot more creativity. Especially when there's not much reference material for my day job, you are creating something completely new. Where as my LEGO models are based of real life vehicles so I know exactly what the proportions/shapes etc... need to be.

- I like the mechanics and movement side of things more than the system bricks. So for MOCs I stick with technic. System sets are more for relaxing and spending time building with my wife.

- Just start building official sets of models that interest you and go from there.

3 hours ago, SNIPE said:

I also avoid 0.5L parts unless they are doubled up to make them an integer unit.

I also avoid diagonal connections and diagonal beams/other such parts.

What is the logic behind this? I don't see anything wrong with doing either of those things. Diagonal connections are great for adding strength and sometimes getting bodywork on the right angles. Half stud connections can also be great for positioning bodywork in a more precise position. By not using those techniques you are just robbing yourself of more possibilities.

[1gor]

I usually prefer to maintain accurate proportions (as much as possible) and then to integrate as much as possible functions. 

Looks is very important to me, so I spent lots if time making appropriate lines and make whole thind stiff as possible, but with less pasts as I can.

Mechanics; better say functions are desired things (since my creations are RC), but sometimes accurate suspension (or other features) are not possible to recreate wether it is nit stiff enough, or Lego does jot produce adequate parts, so I chose solution that is optimal for model with acceptable suspension travel, steering angle, etc...

[SNIPE]

19 hours ago, langko said:

What is the logic behind this? I don't see anything wrong with doing either of those things. Diagonal connections are great for adding strength and sometimes getting bodywork on the right angles. Half stud connections can also be great for positioning bodywork in a more precise position. By not using those techniques you are just robbing yourself of more possibilities.

They typically waste space, so I try to stick to vertical and horizontal connections.

Bodywork Is a different matter I guess.

Edited February 17 by SNIPE

[decemberssecond1]

You guys are the best! Thank you so much!

[XTN]

On 2/16/2024 at 8:50 AM, steph77 said:

Nota: Potentially, a model never finish...

So true!!! 

[XTN]

On 2/15/2024 at 7:03 PM, decemberssecond1 said:

Hey! I am working on making my building skills more well-rounded, and I want to learn more about the engineering aspect of LEGO. I have some questions for technic MOC builders here.

Do you prefer to recreate the actual mechanics of your subject, or come up with your own mechanisms to fit the LEGO system?

How much do you like to prioritize aesthetics vs. mechanics? Is it a 50/50 split?

How much do you like to integrate system bricks into your builds?

How do you decide what subjects to build?

How do you approach design challenges?

If any of you have experience in real-life mechanical engineering, how is your LEGO approach different than your mechanical approach?

What makes you choose technic over system bricks?

What are your tips for a mostly system-based builder who wants to learn more about technic?

Thanks!

Most of the time I use my own mechanisms, because they usually fit better and add playability (e. g. HOG steering), but I've realized that sometimes, when I had trouble to make my own mechanisms work, it helps to take a look at the real-life counterpart.
Due to the fact that LEGO is plastic and real-life mechanism often use metal, you will need more space in LEGO to make a mechanism stiff enough to work properly - or reduce its complexity, which is the way I usually chose.

My vehicles have their place on shelves in my living room, so aesthetics go first.
If a vehicle (a MOC or a set by TLG) has super cool and interesting technical features but doesnt fit into my preferred scale, I won't add it to my garage. I even created pullback MOCs, that have no function besides the pullback enginge.
But there's one more aspect to me: playability. My MOCs are tested by my kids, they need to be robust and the functions need to work smoothly. If a mechanism is too flimsy and i don't find a way to fix this, I might even eliminate it.
So my ranking is aesthetics 1st, playability 2nd, functions 3rd.

I don't like to integrate system bricks unless it's for decoration, like lights, signals, badges, dashboard, grille...
Since I only bought Technic sets to fill my inventory, I don't have many system bricks.

I get my inspiration from MOCs on rebrickable and eurobricks, from movies and from keeping my eyes open every day while driving to the office and back.

To solve design challenges I build one or two prototypes of the specific section and try and rebuild and try and rebuild... Sometimes the challenge appears in the final model, but it's pretty much the same process - just more frustrating.
For linear actuators or pneumatic cylinders i build liftarm dumies that mirror the retracted and the extended state.

My in LEGO most often used experience from real-life mechanical engineering is: Pythagorean triples. A must for creating stiff frames in a grid-based universe.

I prefer using Technic for every reason mentioned in posts above, plus because it has less variety of parts and colors (even if this advantage is decreasing since the addition of parts in vibrant yellow and dark orange or many new different panels).

My tip is: Browse rebrickable for alternate models. Then buy the set, build the set, disassemble it, build the alternative model. This way you can experience different solutions and building techniques from different designers using a limited amount of parts.

Thank you for opening this cool thread. Have fun building!

[decemberssecond1]

22 hours ago, XTN said:

But there's one more aspect to me: playability. My MOCs are tested by my kids, they need to be robust and the functions need to work smoothly. If a mechanism is too flimsy and i don't find a way to fix this, I might even eliminate it.
 

Ooh, that's really cool! How do you make a play feature fun for kids, and how do you balance the amount and type of features you include?

[Lipko]

 

On 2/19/2024 at 12:19 AM, XTN said:

But there's one more aspect to me: playability. My MOCs are tested by my kids, they need to be robust and the functions need to work smoothly. If a mechanism is too flimsy and i don't find a way to fix this, I might even eliminate it.
So my ranking is aesthetics 1st, playability 2nd, functions 3rd.

I also think it's an important thing, because Lego is primarily for kids and playing. For me, making fragile shelf only models is ignoring the medium's main aspect. I hope no one gets offended, it's just an opinion.

By the way, my models were tested by hundreds of kids at exhibitions. Usually I don't visit Lego exhibitions, but I haven't seen or heard about any of them where the visitors could interact directly with the model, and the model wasn't made for a specific game. Kids are smarter and more careful than most of us think. My models have some flimsy stuff, yet those fall off only rarely and it's always easy to fix, because above the age of 3, they feel that something is at its extreme and won't force it further. If the linear actuators click like crazy, they will usually do something about it. If you can't make something sturdy, then make it easy to repair. For example be prepared that the HOG will be pulled out frequently. Plan for that.

Actually, Technic is about functions too, and I don't know how you can show it on an exhibition without interacting with the model. And doing it ax an exhibitor for two days is extremely exhausting and a bit awkward too. Let the visitors explore and help if there's a problem or question.

My latest model which I will publish in 1-2 months was not so strictly designed due to time restictions, there are a lot of system parts that can fall off. Yet, it withstand the latest exhibition. I only had to be close so click back the stuff that fell off. Even the airplane was totally playable and sturdy, yet it's a slim and large model.

Edited February 20 by Lipko

[Jundis]

Very interesting topic, indeed! Here is my take:

Quote

Do you prefer to recreate the actual mechanics of your subject, or come up with your own mechanisms to fit the LEGO system?

Basic mechanism can be recreated in technic, so I try to stay close to the original model as much as possible. Special functions need a workaround or have to be dropped as they would become too bulky. 

Quote

How much do you like to prioritize aesthetics vs. mechanics? Is it a 50/50 split?

Nowadays, 50/50 would be very fitting for my builds, but usually form follows function. The functionality itself can also be done in a ugly way or an elegant way. The credo here is, that the fewer parts, the better. This also helps stability a lot.

Quote

How much do you like to integrate system bricks into your builds?

Same as @XTN, only for deco.

Quote

How do you decide what subjects to build?

Most inspiration comes from observation of real life machinery or just browsing through the web for heavy or agricultural machinery.

Quote

How do you approach design challenges?

Start with the hardest part first. Maybe use different scales for building dummies of a main function. If you really hit a roadblock, don't try to force it, but built another segment. Sometimes inspiration comes in this process. Rather restart a whole assembly in another way that try to make a single part or mechanism fit in an already existing assembly. Sometimes, think about: Can the mechanism be made better with pneumatics/worm gears/linear actuators instead of the current principle?

Quote

If any of you have experience in real-life mechanical engineering, how is your LEGO approach different than your mechanical approach?

As LEGO is limited in its parts, some things are much harder to do than working with metal, where you can get any shape/size/part you want. In bricks, it's way more trial and error than specific planning.

Quote

What makes you choose technic over system bricks?

More complex builds are possible. System is for style, Technic is for function :D

Quote

What are your tips for a mostly system-based builder who wants to learn more about technic?

Start with simple 10...50€ models and try to come up with B-models to understand mechanisms. I once built the 42082 with my nephew (age 10). He had a hard time to even get, what he was building sometimes and got bored, as he didn't saw the purpose. I never understood why Lego (especially for brand models with 1000+ pieces) just don't give the space of 1 page to explain, what assembly you are building and how that assembly/mechanism looks in the real model to enhance the building experience.

Edited February 20 by Jundis

[Sebeus I]

I am primarily a system-based builder myself. But I did build some rather technical creations as well.

Recreating the actual mechanics of a subject is usually the first step and it's pretty cool if you can make it function the same way the real thing does. However I often end up doing my own mechanisms due to limitations (space in the model/reliability)

I design for aesthetics and then I do everything I can to make the desired mechanism fit. When it comes to aesthetics, the exterior of the model, I usually go for system wedge plates and tiles since I really dislike technic panels because of all the gaps. System gives you studs instead though. That really is a personal preference.

When working the mechanisms, Technic is the obvious choice. However I have found myself using System-based solution for mechanisms where Technic simply would not do and that had nothing to do with aesthetics either. Some SNOTted System plate can often provide a lot more stiffness to a frame than Technic beams can. In some instances I was able to create more compact solutions using System rather than Technic.

I choose my subjects for the challenge they offer or in my latest cases, because it really fits in my professional context.

When it comes to my more technical models, my LEGO approach is not that different than my engineering approach...Or the other way around .

I choose Technic over System when I want to validate a new mechanism, to test stuff, eventhough in those cases it might not end up in the final model. Weight is an important factor as well, especially when building larger models I find you can get better structural strength with less weight using Technic.

My tip would be to use real-life mechanisms as your starting point and try recreating these in the brick, either Technic or System or a combination, whatever suits you best. I believe it would be a great waste to only consider one rather then both.

[XTN]

On 2/19/2024 at 10:28 PM, decemberssecond1 said:

Ooh, that's really cool! How do you make a play feature fun for kids, and how do you balance the amount and type of features you include?

From my experience, it is important that a feature works safely and reliably. If a mechanism is so fragile that you have to constantly stand next to your kids, explain to them what they can and can't do, and if you have to constantly repair it, then it's not fun to play.
Storage compartments, such as for tools in a tow truck or simply a trunk in a car, can add a lot of fun and playability.

For the type of features, just follow your heart. Maybe ask yourself why you chose that project.
If you build a car, add a simple HOG steering.

The number of features should initially be low.
Add doors to your car. And after adding doors, find out that you might have to redesign the frame, because it is not stiff enough anymore.
Add a fake engine. And after adding this, you might find out that you have to redesign the steering, because there's not enough space for both.
And so on.
You will continue to challenge yourself from model to model to add one or two more features or to improve already known features.

On 2/20/2024 at 7:43 AM, Lipko said:

If you can't make something sturdy, then make it easy to repair. For example be prepared that the HOG will be pulled out frequently. Plan for that.

Perfect example. 

[2GodBDGlory]

33 minutes ago, XTN said:

From my experience, it is important that a feature works safely and reliably. If a mechanism is so fragile that you have to constantly stand next to your kids, explain to them what they can and can't do, and if you have to constantly repair it, then it's not fun to play

Yep, agreed! I would like to point out, though, that fun playability isn't the only reason to build Technic. When I build, the goal is to have fun building and engineering interesting mechanisms, and playability is almost irrelevant, since I'll take it apart within days of completion anyways. It's certainly worthwhile and valid to build simpler, more durable, more playable models that kids can enjoy (And it's not easy, either! I can build way more complex than TLG does, but I'd have a hard time matching them, or many other MOC builders, in terms of durability!), but there are other enjoyable ways to build--none right or wrong!  

[evank]

On 2/15/2024 at 1:03 PM, decemberssecond1 said:

Do you prefer to recreate the actual mechanics of your subject, or come up with your own mechanisms to fit the LEGO system?

How much do you like to prioritize aesthetics vs. mechanics? Is it a 50/50 split?

How much do you like to integrate system bricks into your builds?

How do you decide what subjects to build?

How do you approach design challenges?

If any of you have experience in real-life mechanical engineering, how is your LEGO approach different than your mechanical approach?

What makes you choose technic over system bricks?

What are your tips for a mostly system-based builder who wants to learn more about technic?

Thanks!

1. It depends. For my life-size Chevy 454 V8 and transmission, I tried to make the engineering as realistic as possible, from the rocker arms to the shifter forks. But for the playable Donkey Kong machine that I'm building, it's going to be entirely custom mechanics that suit my needs, since a real DK machine is electronic and mine is electromechanical.

2. I lean hard to mechanics, while still evoking the look and feel of real things. So mayb 25/75 toward mechanics.

3. 100%. I only build with technical parts of the 1970s-1980s, and these are fully compatible. I don't use anything studless.

4. I like building complicated mechanical models.

5. Stubborness. :)

6. n/a

7. I use both equally.

8. Start small. Build some simple mechanisms. Or copy what others have done, but change some things to make it your own.

[letsbuild]

On 2/15/2024 at 11:03 AM, decemberssecond1 said:

Do you prefer to recreate the actual mechanics of your subject, or come up with your own mechanisms to fit the LEGO system?

How much do you like to prioritize aesthetics vs. mechanics? Is it a 50/50 split?

How much do you like to integrate system bricks into your builds?

How do you decide what subjects to build?

How do you approach design challenges?

If any of you have experience in real-life mechanical engineering, how is your LEGO approach different than your mechanical approach?

What makes you choose technic over system bricks?

What are your tips for a mostly system-based builder who wants to learn more about technic?

1. I like to base my models around real-life systems, but the scale I build in doesn't allow for 100% accuracy.

2. Mechanics are absolutely the priority, but now I have the money I enjoy making sure my frames are uniformly LBG.

3. I tend to avoid it, though they come in handy for headlights and taillights.

4. I tend to wake up and go "I'm gonna build this car today" and after the frame is built it sits on a shelf for months.

5. I do lots of prototyping. Be ready to rebuild your models a few times as you find better ways to do something.

6. I tend to spend more time playing with the parts than calculating.

7. How robust everything can be! I love showing up to displays with my LUG and having nothing to rebuild

8. Build sets. Usually the midrange (60-100$) sets have good parts and features, so I recommend you just pay attention to the techniques used.

And importantly: have fun! do what you enjoy most!

[Seasider]

1. I try to recreate the actual mechanics if that’s what I’m going for with a model, I think I achieved this best on my fairground model and my recent Walker. But often need to make compromises based on Lego capabilities. 

2. Aesthetic vs Mechanics - all depends on what I’m building and why.

3. I try to only use System for final details when I know I can’t use Technic similar to most TLG models.

4. Just depends on what I’m interested in at the time.

5. Understand the brief including requirements and what I want to achieve. do some research in to how to solve it, create lots of small concept models. Prepare to throw lots away.

6. In my working life I’m an engineering manager working as part of a team of engineers so it’s not just me solving the problem. Yes I’m an engineer by profession. Chartered Engineer working in the Car Industry.

7. Technic was what I picked up as I came out of my Dark Ages. I’d had both Technic and System as a kid, but initially came back to Technic. Although I do purchase lots of TLG System based sets, just don’t really build MOCs with System.

8. TLG official sets are a good source of knowledge. I often use assemblies from them. Also start small and slowly expand. Often people want to dive in building a huge model with complex functions from the start, don’t start simple. I’m sure you’d give similar advice to someone starting their System MOC building.

[2GodBDGlory]

8 hours ago, letsbuild said:

4. I tend to wake up and go "I'm gonna build this car today" and after the frame is built it sits on a shelf for months.
 

So true! I've done that too many times...